Judicial Activism vs. Unconstitutionalism

Oh, boy – a rarity. Two Pateratic posts in one day.

The would-be dictator at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue cautions that, should the Supreme Court rightfully reject the individual mandate and, with it, Øbamacare, that they will have been guilty of judicial activism.

Really?!

By doing what they’re supposed to do – defend the constitution – they are activist in his eyes. While, I guess, redefining the Constitution through, say, Roe v Wade isn’t? Redefining marriage from what it has been for literally millenia is not judicial activism? Overturning results in which the majority of the people have made a decision is not judicial activism, but overturning a decision made merely by the majority of congressmen would be? Of course! It’s only judicial activism when it doesn’t suit his purposes.

And, I suppose, an executive branch that ignores constitutional limits – and the court and congress that lets him get away with it – are not activist, either?

What kind of twisted logic is this jackass operating under?

In any case, if The Supremes do not overturn Øbamacare, then it is up to we, the people. This must not stand. The individual mandate in Øbamacare removes any limit from what the federal government can do to us under interpretation of the Constitution today. It must not stand!